Yesterday details were made public about a Southern Seminary professor and the circumstances surrounding his resignation. Dr. David Sills resigned in May 2018. Baptist Press gave no specific reason for his resignation at that time but alluded that there were moral concerns.

In a statement published at lyellstatementonabuse.com, one of Sills’ former students gives her account of what transpired, why she waited to tell her story, and why she decided to go public now. Jennifer Lyell, 2006 graduate of SBTS, says in her statement that 2004 was the first time Sills acted against her. She describes being shocked and blaming herself despite that she had not initiated the encounter.

The story fits well with what we know how sexual abusers groom their victims to gain control and prevent them from escaping the relationship. According to Lyell’s account, Sills knew of previous abuse Lyell had suffered, was in a position of authority over her, took advantage of the vulnerability, and then surrounded Lyell with others who would make telling anyone about the abuse personally devastating to Lyell. I believe the portrait that’s painted for us in Lyell’s statement is of someone we expected to protect and care for the vulnerable but instead took advantage for his own purposes.

When Lyell disclosed her abuse to her employer, Eric Geiger, then of LifeWay, he contacted SBTS. Lyell commends Geiger and Dr. Mohler, president of SBTS, for their handling of the situation and taking immediate action. Lyell states she wasn’t willing to publicly disclose the details and that wish was respected by SBTS and LifeWay.

However, Sills was recently appointed as a missionary at a non-SBC missions agency, which led Lyell to realize she needed to tell her story publicly – in order to avoid someone accused of sexual abuse from being appointed to a position of Christian leadership.

I would encourage you to read and think carefully through Jennifer’s statement. If you’re unfamiliar with the dynamics of how abusers operate, consider the position of leadership and trust that’s described, and how we expect our leaders to care for someone in her situation versus what is described.

And Jennifer, if you happen to read this, you have our prayers, love, and support. We believe you. We’re also praying for many others who’ve been affected in this heartbreaking situation.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Brent Hobbs

Brent Hobbs is lead pastor of New Song Fellowship in Virginia Beach, VA. Before that he pastored Severn Baptist Church in Severn, NC. He's a graduate of SBTS (M.Div.) & Dallas Baptist University. WebsiteTwitter

Rachael Denhollander weighted in on the SBTS handling of the situation.

They would have, and did when they found out about his new position, ensure accurate and legal warnings were given which resulted in his firing again. It was handled expertly, and I rarely am able to say that.

1. There is a time to grieve on behalf of victims.
2. There is a time to grieve on behalf of the destruction of our shared witness for the Gospel because of abuse within our systems.
3. This is time for the first, and for the second.
4. This is not the time for trying to cast aspersions or spread the blame. If you don’t understand how/what/why, then read other stories of sexual abuse and other stories of victims. Try to understand first.

Please.

On behalf of those who need healing from sexual abuse at the hands of church leaders, try to understand rather than vent the first thoughts that come to your mind.

It’s sometimes hard for people to learn of a situation like this and not try to fit it in the grid of adultery rather than that of abuse. But stories like this are more similar to those of a battered woman; when people blame the victim because she didn’t leave her abuser. It’s not that simple or easy. The abuser creates a condition that keeps the person from being able to leave. He manipulates the situation so that there is a great cost to ending the relationship and the abuser uses that to his advantage. Yet, I hear people condemn battered women all the time “why didn’t she just leave?”

The relationship and cost to Jen is similar to that of a battered woman. Not only did he use is power and influence and her trauma history to take advantage of her initially, he created a situation which made it incredibly difficult to leave.

March 9, 2019 11:32 am

Jacque

As a LPC, that specialized in trauma of all types, especially sexual abuse! WELL SAID! I ahve worked with literally hundreds of situaltions like this and the dynamic is very familiar! Do not blame the victim!

March 10, 2019 10:33 am

Tarheel_Dave

Well written, Brent.

The alleged actions of Dr. Sills disgust me.

The actions of Geiger and Mohler as reported by Ms. Lyell are models for handling situations like this.

I am praying for Ms. Lyell, Dr. Sills victimized family (victimized by Dr. Sills) and others involved in this saga.

March 9, 2019 11:41 am

Debbie Kaufman

Amen to the article and Doug, Todd’s comments. I believe Jennifer. I am grieved beyond words.

March 9, 2019 11:43 am

Tarheel_Dave

Also… Let us not forget to pray for those who have also been victimized – Albeit in a completely different way – there have been many, many students who have come through southern seminary who admired and respected and even treasured their time with Dr. Sills – to find out that there is a predator hiding behind the man that they know – this has to be heartbreaking.

The narcissist is the greatest enemy of the church and we need to confront it.

March 9, 2019 12:20 pm

Rudd

This is a tragedy. SBTS contributed to the situation by allowing the perpetrator to resign versus immediately terminating their employment. Termination for cause should have been action taken. The reasons why remain confidential placing the person terminated for cause in the position to explain. As it occurred, it cloaked the situation under the guise of appearance of a voluntary resignation. Termination for cause, as the record for employment action, with a no rehire recommendation, would have also met the request by the victim for confidentiality. This is something all Seminaries need to correct versus allowing a resignation in cases of abuse or moral failure. Sure hope this professor received no compensation in exchange for their resignation. Prayers extended to the abuse victim who exhibited courage versus those who allowed a resignation.

When the non-SBC entity received the facts they immediately dismissed the individual. Had SBTS done the same….the non-SBC entity would not have hired them. All of which predicated the victim now coming forward. We need abuse to be a termniable offense and not masked by a resignation.

If the abuse victim requests that the details be withheld it is not unreasonable for them to be withheld.

March 9, 2019 4:39 pm

Jacque

It was awfully convenient to let him resign! They took advantage of the state she was in as well. She should have had better support that protected her but encouraged her to allow them to fire him with cause with no possibility of rehire. Do you really think HE would have revealed the details!!!

March 10, 2019 10:39 am

Brent Cloyd

It appears to me that it is policy to allow someone to resign rather than be fired. If he had not resigned he would have been fired. We are splitting hairs here that need not be split.

March 10, 2019 10:34 pm

Tim b

Dave, to clarify, are you saying that its position of SBC voices that it is okay for churches and SBC institutions to dismiss staff members with moral failure without comment as long as the other party is okay with that.

SBC Voices does not have a set of official positions. You do not represent my position fairly. Not even close.

March 9, 2019 4:40 pm

Tim b

I just don’t see how it’s consistent to endorse what southern seminary has done here but then condemned churches to let guys go quietly. In both case the result is the same and that is that the perpetrator shows back up and has to be addressed by the victim.

They listened to the victim of abuse. They reported the offense. The dealt with the offender. They observed the wishes of the victim that this not be publicly reported. I don’t know the ins and outs of this but if the victim is satisfied with the response of the institution then I am not sure it is a huge issue.

I understand the argument you are seeking to make BUT you are seeking to create a controversy for some undisclosed reason.

The only person who has the right to criticize SBTS is Ms. Lyell. I am sure that SBTS would wish they could go back and handle things in a different manner. However, given circumstances as they were hindsight is 20-20.

It is time to set policy and not second guess.

March 9, 2019 8:32 pm

Michael White

Possibly firing then as has been suggested woud not have kept the issue quiet.
So to make sure it was kept quiet, they let him resign.
I dont know, hence the use of the word ‘possibly’.

But I do hope that policy will be set that such abuse will warrant immediate dismissal-with-cause.
There is more than one victim to consider because most abusers are multiple offenders and even when caught will abuse again.

The victim usually feels ashamed and wants to keep it secret due to the stigma attached.Continued public support of victims, I hope will mitigate that and allow a greater openness and a swifter resolution. Most victims are younger and somewhat more subject to such forces, which is why they are made to feel by their abuser that it the victims fault. It isn’t. It is never their fault. The fault lies completely on the abuser, 100%.

March 9, 2019 10:44 pm

Tim B

I don’t have a problem with how Southern handled this. Most churches
handle these things the same way and are resoundingly criticized for it.
The only controversy I see here is the inconsistency of the activists and advocates. Folks have clamored for openness in the process, criticized letting folks resign quitely, and called for the resignation of leaders who have done less. Now, in this case it is “nothing to see here, good job Southern.” I’m trying to figure out what the protocol is and I for one am not seeing consistency unless it is “if the victim is ok with how it was handled then we’re ok.” That’s well and good if it is the ethical principle you are going by but what if the victim decides later that they are unhappy with the way things were handled?

March 10, 2019 3:58 pm

Michael White

What if there is more than one victim and one wants it handled different from another victim?
What if there are ‘silent’ victims who need healing and might get it if the sin and evil is exposed?
And what about the possible [and likely] future victims of the abuser if everything is handled quietly? [and he then is free to start the process anew at another location -like Catholic priests who get moved around]?

Those with the responsibility to oversee also have a wider responsibility, not only to other possible or potential victims, but also to the the abuser, who may not get help if his sin is relatively kept covered-up.

Likewise the lack of openness in the process might enable other abusers while open rebukes and firings might make them pause or leave.

March 10, 2019 4:39 pm

Bt scott

I assume it makes a big difference if there was nothing illegal going on that would require a law enforcement investigation. Though this appears to be more than harassment, if nothing illegal occurred, this is probably why they adhered to the victims wishes to keep it private. That said, I may have kept it private, but still would have fired him.

[Editor: David, the accusation is not that the two of them had an affair, but that Lyell was the victim of sexual assault. If you’d like to adjust your comment accordingly and resubmit, you’re free to do so. -BH]

I am going to keep as calm as I possibly can in my response to you. If I fail, the sin is mine.

He manipulated her past abusive childhood to manipulate her into a twisted “relationship” that only met his narcissistic needs. The fact that you don’t recognize this fact disturbs me for your sphere of influence.

Yes, she sinned and she owned up to it but your disregard for her pain is your sin.

We need to find a new category here that we haven’t always acknowledged. I’d entitle it “Understandably Wrong.”

Understandably wrong describes a situation in which (a) at the moment you, with the best of intentions and motives, and without good guidance to the contrary, did what seemed best to you, but then (b) after some time, with the benefit of hindsight, you realize that you should’ve done something else.

I think that Ms. Lyell is writing to suggest that the approach that she and SBTS took last year was understandably wrong. She is, as I read her, recommending that greater transparency and openness than that which happened last year at SBTS—something more like the approach that MBTS took with Christian George, SEBTS took with Alvin Reid—would have been the right approach.

As I read her, she is assigning no fault to those who handled this situation, and is instead saying that they did as she requested. However, she is writing in an effort to correct what she advocated before and to make the details of this situation public.

I think we miss what she’s trying to accomplish if we pile on blame and start pointing a lot of fingers, but I think we ALSO miss by 1000 miles what she is trying to accomplish if we defend as the right approach the idea of letting a professor resign in a situation like this and don’t hear in what she is writing a plea for us always in the future to handle this sort of situation by terminating for cause and disclosing that the termination is for sexual misconduct. Only by doing so can we prevent people who have perpetrated this sort of behavior from moving to another situation and reoffending.

Bart, you and I read this the same. Confession PLUS “Man I wish this would’ve been handled differently.” I know I can think of situations in my own ministry where your new category of “understandably wrong” would absolutely apply. I thought I was doing right…but after a while figure out it should’ve been handled differently.

March 10, 2019 10:25 pm

Jacque

Yes!

March 10, 2019 11:58 pm

Bonnie Jacobs

Once again, Dr. Barber, you are spot on in your assessment of the situation. Thank-you.

Bart, just wanting to think through this a little. Suppose they terminated with cause and “sexual misconduct” is named. What if that’s not specific enough for the next employer to pass? Then we’re basically in the same situation where more detail needs to be revealed. Though I certainly agree at first glance that appears to be the better path, I’m not sure it solves as much as we might think at first. In fact, it might, in being too vague, complicate the situation even more.

Another issue that must be considered is the wishes of the victim. These situations can be incredibly complex. In theory, you could have an adult victim who is unwilling for details to be made public and I think our default position should be abiding by the wishes of the victim, though I suppose some circumstances may warrant deviating if other people are in danger.

I’m happy to gently suggest and urge victims to shine as much light on an abuser as possible, but at the end of the day their wishes deserve a very high amount of consideration.

Knowing the complexity, I’m more than willing to learn more and I’m not claiming to know for sure what’s best here. But to me it’s worth noting that Rachael Denhollander above (see pinned comment) believes SBTS handled the situation “expertly”.

Brent, thanks for the discussion. I’d say this (and, as I am heading off into a week-long campout, this will have to be the last thing I say).

1. I admittedly favor transparency over a lack of information. This is my general inclination beyond this specific topic, but it is, without apology, my belief about how best to handle this.

2. Having been in the situation before (or, at least, in a very similar situation), I know that it is quite possible to give all of the information necessary about the perpetrator without revealing information about the victim. Indeed (and I am NOT casting stones, here, but just hoping that we all can settle our thinking around some best practices), if at the time of David Sills’s firing we had learned that he had been dismissed for sexual misconduct, we now wouldn’t know who Ms. Lyell is (unless she had just wished to disclose her name and her part in all of this). I have no idea who might have been involved in the situations with Christian George or Alvin Reid, for example, nor will they have to reveal their identities in order to make sure that these men don’t land similar gigs next week. Whatever scenarios we might hypothesize, in this real-life situation in front of us, this victim’s privacy has been compromised, not enhanced, by the lack of disclosure at the time of Sills’s dismissal. I think that victims get to decide what is revealed about victims, but I do not think that victims should be the ones deciding what is revealed about perpetrators.

3. Even if there are some situations for which it is insufficient to say, “fired for sexual misconduct,” there are more situations for which it is perfectly sufficient. And in those situations for which it might be insufficient, those situations are made no worse off by transparency. It is, with regard to the prevention of further abuse, an approach with a blank “con” column.

4. It is my understanding that the only way anyone knew that Sills was about to get back into missionary work was that an organization put his name on their website. What if they hadn’t?

Clarification: The “very similar situation” I mentioned is an occasion in which our church sent to prison a man who was molesting teenaged boys.

March 11, 2019 4:32 am

Rudd

There are no statutory limitations placed on a previous employer regarding disclosure why a previous employer left. There are civil risks for liability that place most employers in the position to only provide dates of employment and previous job title. Example….the previous employee could claim the facts disclosed were not true and created a civil cause for defamation. The case discussed would not apply. However, even if true, under an agreed upon resignation, the previous employee can claim civil liability because facts that were agreed upon were considered “private and confidential” and caused them economical harm. The only reason organizations revert to a resignation is an effort to seek a non-confrontational separation to the benefit of both parties. Dr. Barber’s position is 100% correct. Dismissal could and should have occurred in this case. This would have protected the victim as well. Those designing the future best practices should begin with abuse being a dischargeable offense everytime.

March 11, 2019 6:59 am

Tim b

I don’t believe the wishes of the victim matter more than institutional concerns. The victim does not have to be named. Victim activists have been beating churches up for exactly this scenario.

March 11, 2019 8:39 am

Anne

The wishes of the victim are always primary in the concern hierarchy. Even criminally this is the case. Victims can choose to press charges or file a police report or not. In this case, the wishes of the victims are prioritized over the concerns of the institution. If the victim is a minor, that decision involves guardians and mandatory reports and is different than an adult victim.To believe otherwise is to perpetuate exactly what is wrong in these situations: reputation management and avoiding legal consequence.

March 14, 2019 12:37 pm

Tarheel_Dave

Sincere question and then a entity policy suggestion ….to help me make sure I am getting the details right….

Didn’t George and Reid also offer statements themselves that gave us insight into the reasoning for thier dismissals rather than/along with the seminaries (who – also said, as SBTS, did : “we don’t make specific comments on personnel matters”)?

I think, as I said above, SBTS did an excellent job given current policy and procedures and the confirmed desire of the victim.

As for policy siggestion: I wonder if announcments of “administrative leave” is an option our entities might employ while a third party (police in law related issues/independent private investigations in moral but not illegal issues.)?

This way If police charge – our concern about jumping into future employment without disclosure is addressed (assuming the potential employers know how to use Google and conduct background checks) – and in other cases if the independent investigation confirms immorality, the person is dismissed for moral failure….again addressing potential employment jumps.

March 11, 2019 8:13 am

Rudd

SBTS through Dr. Mohler, stated last week on March 8, that STBS could not confirm the reasons for Dr. Stills resignation. The original Baptist communication 9 months ago was also absent stating any reason. All of which points to the agreed upon terms of Dr. Still’s resignation and perhaps the nature of allowing him to quietly exit. Now the victim, probably under advise from counsel, released her statement. It is naive to believe all parties have not lawyered up. Had SBTS dismissed Dr. Stills for violation of seminary rules this would be much easier to defend. SBTS actions, which are normal in most cases, was to ensure the circumstance was handled in a non-confrontational manner. Now the victim’s new statement brings to light the flaw in the process, resulting in an embarrassment to SBTS, perhaps non intended.

March 11, 2019 8:55 am

Tarheel_Dave

If the accused jumps ship in the middle of the admin leave, the independent private investigation continues and announcment still made at conclusion. (Of course a resignation won’t matter at all for police investigations, obviously).

I wouldn’t presume that independent private investigations are necessary in most personnel matters. If criminal, it should have already been reported. The problem of passing along employees who have violated institutional moral policies is one that is sometimes difficult to address to the satisfaction of all parties. Neutral personnel reports may be best in most cases. See IMB…

March 11, 2019 9:22 am

Tarheel_Dave

Yeah – it’s messy – and you’re very right – satisfying legal and civil considerations, all involved and – much less – us onlookers, is tremdously easier said than done.

March 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Anne

Re: IMB case–May be best to avoid legal consequence, but what about moral consequence? To let a predator (IMB) continue ministering and being passed around even after being confronted (why can he still pastor after being terminated?) and deceiving the victim (by not answering the question and allowing deception to continue since he was fired). MA had access to many vulnerable people after his IMB tenure. And they did nothing about it because they would face potential lawsuits (their words). Morally unacceptable and reprehensible.

Can we not all be realistic here and recognize that when someone well known, like David Sills, resigns suddenly with no specific explanation, anyone who has sense knows something very serious happened? Resigning at an odd time, with nothing new lined up, and no public explanation = almost certainly a moral failure. Illness or otherwise would likely result in some explanation, however limited. Those arguing we (people not involved) needed to know more are, simply put, wrong. SBTS handled this precisely as it should have handled this, especially in light of Ms. Lyell’s desires, which were properly considered, and, when called upon to speak up, SBTS did so immediately and without reservation. Arguments about transparency and so forth sound more like people seeking salacious gossip than true Christian concern.

At this point, Ms. Lyell was right to come forward to prevent Dr. Sills from obtaining a leadership position in a Christian venture. He is disqualified. Perhaps if he were to seek forgiveness from Ms. Lyell and others whom he has hurt, there might be potential for being restored but apparently Dr. Sills has not done this.

Lastly, should we not, as Christians, pray for Dr. Sills? I almost never see calls for us to pray for folks like him who have fallen.

March 11, 2019 12:07 pm

Tarheel_Dave

I’m praying he comes clean, repents and demonstrates such as he enters into counseling and direct accountability… perhaps then restoration to a non pastoral position can be contemplated.

March 11, 2019 1:56 pm

Gus Nelson

Me too.

March 12, 2019 9:37 pm

shellie

I am just trying to understand why an adult having an affair is suddenly an “abuse victim”. Can someone enlighten me on this? I understand there was a power differential so you might call it an “abuse of power”, but she doesn’t give enough detail to make a case that this was non-consensual.

March 14, 2019 11:11 pm

Anne Marie Miller

Most state laws indicate that spiritual authority constitutes abuse criminally. Morally as well. An abuse of power for the use of another human for sexual gratification is the very definition of sexual abuse. Because there is consent does not forsake that there was abuse.

March 15, 2019 6:33 pm

Anne Marie Miller

Also, she is not obligated to give any detail to anyone other than those who oversee the man/her and other leaders as well as the law. The public is owed nothing in regard to details. We are not the judge nor jury.